Talk:Press releases/Wikipedia tightens editorial control

Thanks Michael for helping out :-) One problem: I don't know if the part about IP addresses isn't just too confusing for a general press audience without technical knowledge. --Elian 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was important to say something about it, and that was my best shot at making it understandable to a general audience. If they can't figure it out, they can skip on to the next paragraph. --Michael Snow 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We could mention the w:en:WP:cite discussion as an action (as well as the soon coming quality tool), which could improve some of the criticism raised at the moment. Anthere

I thought I was pretty clear about the ISP part in my email earlier. Bouncing the responsibility on ISP providers by stating something that is "legal" is *not* helping. I quote: However, for legal and privacy reasons most internet service providers will not assist in further identifying the person responsible unless a lawsuit is filed. Oh yeah? Well, that's the law. They're not allowed to give those informations unless they're asked to from a lawyer (subpoena or whatever you call it). Sorry, we're stating the obvious and giving a bad name to people who are actually following the law. notafish }<';> 20:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not obvious to a lot of journalists, to wit Seigenthaler. The paragraph is merely intended to point out that this is as far as we can go on that issue. It's not meant to blame or give a bad name to ISPs, and I don't see that it does so. But if anybody can improve it, by all means go ahead. --Michael Snow 20:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope I won't edit because I don't see how to improve it. I would simply take the whole sentence out. I'm anyway against throwing more oil on the fire :-) and I think that's exactly what this release is doing. But my bad about the not allowed. They might or might not be depending on their contractual things, and you're right, the sentence is not that bad. It just rang too many bells for me. I think eveyone got what they wanted out of this whole story, I would just stop the nonsense. notafish }<';> 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be right in some cases, I'm not sure on short notice what ISPs are and aren't allowed to disclose in different jurisdictions. I figured the generic "legal and privacy reasons" could cover it. Anyway, the paragraph is gone now, and while I still think it was valuable, it's not worth fighting over. Press releases need to be concise, after all. --Michael Snow 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I thought this was an experiment, but apparently it is a steady policy? At least that is what I understand from this press release. notafish }<';> 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That might be a level of nuance that most journalists won't find useful in writing a story. I don't know, we'll see how much media coverage there is the next time Jimmy tweaks this. --Michael Snow 20:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I still added it as an adverb. If you're uncomfortable with the release being too definitive on this issue, please rewrite and precise it. --Elian 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the adverb is an excellent way to work it in. --Michael Snow 21:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Thanx. Much more to the point. notafish }<';> 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please have a last look at it - in my opinion it's ready to move it to the WMF website now. --Elian 21:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm.. in italian it sounds like "ok, yesterday we made an experiment, and today we turn it into a new rule".. --Frieda 13:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)